Delaware Bill Requiring Gun Buyers To Be Fingerprinted, Trained, and Get State Permission to Buy

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

No.

Have you not had enough of the government infringing on your rights under the guise of ‘public safety’ ?

Shall not.

What is "A well regulated militia" even in there for? What does it even mean if "Shall not be infringed" supersedes it?

The framers wanted the people to be well armed and trained.
The word ‘regulated’ doesn’t pertain to government regulations.

Regulated can mean to bring order, method, or uniformity.

That describes what a militia is. It has to have rules and a command structure.

Nothing to do with the government getting their fingers into it in my view.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I bet criminals and non citizens will be in lines to get their biometrics done.

Woo hoo, we found a solution, the cartels in the US, now a billion dollar "industry" thanks to biden are applauding this too.

a reply to: marg6043

I bet criminals and non citizens will be in lines to get their biometrics done.

Criminals get "it" done when they're arrested, whatever the technology is right now. I don't know, I haven't been arrested recently. LOL

Some kind of biometrics are done when passports are issued, or should be. If course illegals won't line up, but if they want to be documented as asylum seekers they will.

If the founders were alive today, I believe they would be very concerned – because the Constitution is clear that the only militias protected by the Second Amendment are “well-regulated” units authorized and controlled by state governments, not a private citizen militia.

The preamble to the Second Amendment mentions service in a militia as a reason citizens have the right to keep and bear arms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

In his ruling, Benitez builds on the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller. In that landmark case, the Supreme Court held, as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, that the amendment protects a right to possess a firearm unconnected to military service and that individuals are free to use such weapons for “traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Is more of state regulated, no centralized government regulated, and can not be privatized either, that is why no laws against the second amendment has been done against it.

States takes this matter into their own hands, but still they can not infringe on second amendments rights, soo I am sure that those second amendment faithful followers will find something unconstitutional about it Delaware bill.

theconversation.com...

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

No.

Have you not had enough of the government infringing on your rights under the guise of ‘public safety’ ?

Shall not.

What is "A well regulated militia" even in there for? What does it even mean if "Shall not be infringed" supersedes it?

The framers wanted the people to be well armed and trained.
The word ‘regulated’ doesn’t pertain to government regulations.

Regulated can mean to bring order, method, or uniformity.

That describes what a militia is. It has to have rules and a command structure.

Nothing to do with the government getting their fingers into it in my view.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

I think the State has something to do with it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: hangedman13

For purchasing a rifle or shot gun there is no mandatory finger-printing.

I think there should be. Or, some other form of biometrics, so that we are assured the person is who they say they are.

There are places you don’t need an ID to vote, yet you want my biometrics or dna to exercise my 2A?

I'd love to know what some of you people think a background check is gonna do.

People who commit crimes are having their charges downgraded or completely dropped by Democrat prosecutors, so their background check is gonna turn up zilch whether they are too dangerous to own a gun or not.

Background checks are useless if there's no data in the system to flag them. Violent criminals have a clean background and are able to pass your precious background checks and get guns, due to Democrats' pro-criminal policies.

Way to go.

a reply to: Vermilion

Isn't democrats the best anti constitution killers of all? can you imagine if they get away with the supreme court and the constitution.

We will be a full-blown dictatorship under the democratic version of politics.

Another stupid feel good law that will let morons say... See we did something that will only negatively effect law abiding citizens and spend millions in tax payer dollars before being thrown out as unconstitutional.

a reply to: Vermilion

There are places you don’t need an ID to vote, yet you want my biometrics or dna to exercise my 2A?

I'm unaware of any state where one can register to vote without a valid ID of some kind, to prove they are the person the claim to be.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

There are places you don’t need an ID to vote, yet you want my biometrics or dna to exercise my 2A?

I'm unaware of any state where one can register to vote without a valid ID of some kind, to prove they are the person the claim to be.

Have you not received your unsolicited mail in ballot yet?
You voted in person you say? Do you live in a place where you don’t need to show ID to cast that Biden vote?
You had to show ID? Did they fingerprint/biometric/blood test you?
There’s no more compromising with you gun grabbers.
No more.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

No.

Have you not had enough of the government infringing on your rights under the guise of ‘public safety’ ?

Shall not.

What is "A well regulated militia" even in there for? What does it even mean if "Shall not be infringed" supersedes it?

The framers wanted the people to be well armed and trained.
The word ‘regulated’ doesn’t pertain to government regulations.

Regulated can mean to bring order, method, or uniformity.

That describes what a militia is. It has to have rules and a command structure.

Nothing to do with the government getting their fingers into it in my view.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

I think the State has something to do with it.

From what is “the free State” being secured from?

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

No.

Have you not had enough of the government infringing on your rights under the guise of ‘public safety’ ?

Shall not.

What is "A well regulated militia" even in there for? What does it even mean if "Shall not be infringed" supersedes it?

The framers wanted the people to be well armed and trained.
The word ‘regulated’ doesn’t pertain to government regulations.

Regulated can mean to bring order, method, or uniformity.

That describes what a militia is. It has to have rules and a command structure.

Nothing to do with the government getting their fingers into it in my view.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

I think the State has something to do with it.

From what is “the free state” being secured from?

In those day? Injuns and slave uprisings. Maybe the Brits. They did attack again in 1814.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

No.

Have you not had enough of the government infringing on your rights under the guise of ‘public safety’ ?

Shall not.

What is "A well regulated militia" even in there for? What does it even mean if "Shall not be infringed" supersedes it?

The framers wanted the people to be well armed and trained.
The word ‘regulated’ doesn’t pertain to government regulations.

Regulated can mean to bring order, method, or uniformity.

That describes what a militia is. It has to have rules and a command structure.

Nothing to do with the government getting their fingers into it in my view.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

I think the State has something to do with it.

From what is “the free state” being secured from?

In those day? Injuns and slave uprisings. Maybe the Brits. They did attack again in 1814.

James Madison put it this way…

While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".

And in Delaware’s case…

In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Vermilion

I had to provide a valid ID to register to vote. Once registered, I don't need to show my ID again. I must attest that I am who I say I am by signature.

People who are not registered to vote can't vote in my state. I'm unaware of any state where they can.

One man's vote is hardly the same as one man's bullet, though. I really don't think there's a comparison there.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
I'd love to know what some of you people think a background check is gonna do.

People who commit crimes are having their charges downgraded or completely dropped by Democrat prosecutors, so their background check is gonna turn up zilch whether they are too dangerous to own a gun or not.

Background checks are useless if there's no data in the system to flag them. Violent criminals have a clean background and are able to pass your precious background checks and get guns, due to Democrats' pro-criminal policies.

Way to go.

And the poster child may just be Hunter Biden! He allegedly went through a background check and purchased a handgun! I sold firearms and know for a fact that drug use is asked and is a disqualifier for any gun purchase! AND the reason for his dishonorable discharge (drug use) should have been flagged in his background check!

originally posted by: hangedman13

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
I'd love to know what some of you people think a background check is gonna do.

People who commit crimes are having their charges downgraded or completely dropped by Democrat prosecutors, so their background check is gonna turn up zilch whether they are too dangerous to own a gun or not.

Background checks are useless if there's no data in the system to flag them. Violent criminals have a clean background and are able to pass your precious background checks and get guns, due to Democrats' pro-criminal policies.

Way to go.

And the poster child may just be Hunter Biden! He allegedly went through a background check and purchased a handgun! I sold firearms and know for a fact that drug use is asked and is a disqualifier for any gun purchase! AND the reason for his dishonorable discharge (drug use) should have been flagged in his background check!

Democrats do love letting criminals who commit gun crimes off with little or no penalty. They routinely do it in cities. Obama commuted the sentences of a bunch of federal inmates that were serving sentences for gun crimes.

They absolutely do not care about gun crime. They want as much of it as possible. There's a reason they didn't pass any sweeping gun reform when they had a supermajority in the Senate when Obama was in office.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

I had to provide a valid ID to register to vote. Once registered, I don't need to show my ID again. I must attest that I am who I say I am by signature.

People who are not registered to vote can't vote in my state. I'm unaware of any state where they can.

One man's vote is hardly the same as one man's bullet, though. I really don't think there's a comparison there.

There are 24 states that practice automatic voter registration.

I’d rather just attest to who I am in a gun shop with only a signature.
Good idea.

a reply to: Vermilion

There are 24 states that practice automatic voter registration.

LOL...Through the DMV, the agency that issues IDs.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

It's not about public safety it's about collecting finger prints of law abiding citizens. How many times has a felon used stolen ID to purchase firearms?

Felons that want a new firearm will continue doing straw purchase or buy stolen firearms.